I've just always assumed I'm such a unimportant little bug no one has bothered to notice me let alone step on me. If I'm wrong about the first how long till I get the second?

Do you know how spiders work? Every byte you've posted online has been scanned multiple times already, I'm sure. The code searches for certain pieces of data. All matches are aggregated and filtered.

You might be an insignificant nothing in your own head, but you might as well be a world leader having your emails published in the state newspaper if you write the kind of words they want for all the security that provides from data mining.

Skleenar:YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

They are careful to differentiate between the metadata and the content. Whether or not this nicety is actually being observed in practice is probably important, but so far these revelations seem to indicate that what is being collected is metadata, which is then likely being used to identify content of interest which is then FISA'd. (And, I would guess, probably automatically, without human intervention).

And this is what you will believe until the government tells you to believe differently?

I'm embarrassed for the NSA. I'm embarrassed for their intrusiveness, and I'm embarrassed that their careers amount to spending 90% of their time looking for a terrorist but finding out it's just a guy jerking off or a woman in her car texting or talking while driving.

uber humper:Skleenar: YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

They are careful to differentiate between the metadata and the content. Whether or not this nicety is actually being observed in practice is probably important, but so far these revelations seem to indicate that what is being collected is metadata, which is then likely being used to identify content of interest which is then FISA'd. (And, I would guess, probably automatically, without human intervention).

And this is what you will believe until the government tells you to believe differently?

This kind of captures how I feel about this whole thing: if the program works as the NSA says it does, I don't have such a problem with it. And I can see how it would be useful and good in capturing terrorists. But how can we be sure that we are being told the truth of what this program is and does?

YixilTesiphon:Skleenar: YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

They are careful to differentiate between the metadata and the content. Whether or not this nicety is actually being observed in practice is probably important, but so far these revelations seem to indicate that what is being collected is metadata, which is then likely being used to identify content of interest which is then FISA'd. (And, I would guess, probably automatically, without human intervention).

You really believe they stop there?

I think it is clear from my above statement that I leave the door open to possible abuses (as is nearly inevitable in any human system). However, I think the issue is more that of bandwidth. There is no way the government could possibly "read" in the usual sense of the word every single e-mail or other electronic communication sent by everyone using the internet. They'd have to target the very small subset of interesting communications more effectively using some sort of automated target identification. And, it seems that there is plenty of embeded information in metadata that would effectively allow this sort of analysis for targeting.

Now, to be clear, there are many ways in which this targeting could possibly be more invasive, ie automated real-time analysis of content, etc. However, I would suspect that this would also have bandwidth limits and is probably reserved for higher-priority targets and/or less politically troubling targets (i.e. foreign entities).

mrlewish:I have a question. Why the f*** is a military person in charge of this shait?

Extra precautions. Military personnell are really, really bad at lying to superiors, and if they're caught lying, the UCMJ and normal laws both apply. especially for someone old enough to become a general at all, you can more than double their jail time.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:Skleenar: Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

And you don't think if 60 years ago the post office had logged every letter so that they could establish patterns of who was talking to "known Communists," that would have constituted a violation of privacy?

Really, I'd be interested to hear your answer

It probably would have been, but a note to your metaphor: It's closer to UPS doing that already, and the government telling them to share the records they were already taking.

jake_lex:uber humper: Skleenar: YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

They are careful to differentiate between the metadata and the content. Whether or not this nicety is actually being observed in practice is probably important, but so far these revelations seem to indicate that what is being collected is metadata, which is then likely being used to identify content of interest which is then FISA'd. (And, I would guess, probably automatically, without human intervention).

And this is what you will believe until the government tells you to believe differently?

This kind of captures how I feel about this whole thing: if the program works as the NSA says it does, I don't have such a problem with it. And I can see how it would be useful and good in capturing terrorists. But how can we be sure that we are being told the truth of what this program is and does?

Skleenar:However, I think the issue is more that of bandwidth. There is no way the government could possibly "read" in the usual sense of the word every single e-mail or other electronic communication sent by everyone using the internet.

Agreed. This isn't useful for finding patterns. It is only useful for doing away with inconvenient people by claiming to be omniscient.

I hate how all of these "revelations" just keep telling us stuff that we've known about for 10 freaking years.

It's just an attempt to pin this whole process on Obama, despite him actually getting the court and Congressional approval for every search (Which W refused to do). There are seriously people right now that are furious and horrified that Obama is spying on Americans through the courts, who didn't give one rat's half-eaten ass about Bush doing all of that and more illegally and without the slightest shred of oversight.

I have a theory that nothing pisses off a Republican more than when Obama adopts a Republican policy (This, Health care mandate, Amnesty, TSA, Drone strikes, closed-door meetings, etc).

jake_lex:uber humper: Skleenar: YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

They are careful to differentiate between the metadata and the content. Whether or not this nicety is actually being observed in practice is probably important, but so far these revelations seem to indicate that what is being collected is metadata, which is then likely being used to identify content of interest which is then FISA'd. (And, I would guess, probably automatically, without human intervention).

And this is what you will believe until the government tells you to believe differently?

This kind of captures how I feel about this whole thing: if the program works as the NSA says it does, I don't have such a problem with it. And I can see how it would be useful and good in capturing terrorists. But how can we be sure that we are being told the truth of what this program is and does?

You can't. I know someone in the NSA and asked him more or less that once. He replied by telling me it's part of working there. You just sometimes have to let the public have some misconceptions, often aided by Hollywood, because as infuriating as it sometimes is to be misunderstood, correcting them could often involve disclosing their exact capabilites and methods, which then makes them easy to avoid and therefore meaninglees. Oh, and is a crime.

YixilTesiphon:Skleenar: YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Well, not to take the bait, but what they are discussing here isn't like reading your mail, it's more like reading the address of the recipient, the address of the sender, the time the message was sent and when it was delivered.

They are careful to differentiate between the metadata and the content. Whether or not this nicety is actually being observed in practice is probably important, but so far these revelations seem to indicate that what is being collected is metadata, which is then likely being used to identify content of interest which is then FISA'd. (And, I would guess, probably automatically, without human intervention).

You really believe they stop there?

Nope- but I like to dream on occasion of a country without omnipotent inteligence organizations snooping over my shoulder as I browse backdoor grannies 3 on my Iphone or PC.

The Numbers:YixilTesiphon: What is the difference between this and the government reading all of your mail? It's magically different because it's on the internet?

Convenience. As long as we aren't inconvenienced by government surveillance, we'll continue to bend over and take it like we don't mind it happening.

Honestly? The difference is content - at least supposedly.

The info I've seen is who called who when, who said what publicly, and who sent mail to whom when.

That's no different than the mail. The government CAN track who you send mail to and how much - they're the one delivering it after all. And the address is on the outside. They can even search the mail for certain safety issues - explosives, drugs, dangerous chemicals, illegal imports, etc. as long as its non-invasive or they have a warrant.

So if the program is limited to similar metadata - who, when, how often - and not content it's very similar to what they do with the mail in the course of business.

In addition - you lose 4th amendment protections over things when you give them to someone else. Like UPS, Google, or Bank of America. Ironically USPS can't get into your mail without a warrant - because they're the government and 4th amendment bound. UPS and FedEx? Not as tightly restricted. Even if they then hand it over to the government.

Sudo_Make_Me_A_Sandwich:And you don't think if 60 years ago the post office had logged every letter so that they could establish patterns of who was talking to "known Communists," that would have constituted a violation of privacy?

Really, I'd be interested to hear your answer

How about establishing a pattern of who was embezzling or money laundering or working with the Mafia? I mean, why did you use an example of something that was not a crime, if other than to somehow imply that I am somehow in favor of using this data for political intimidation?

Look, obviously this stuff can be abused. But just about any power the Government has can be abused. I don't think the mere fact that something can be abused is evidence that it IS being abused.

Just for the record, I would be surprised if the NSA isn't taking liberties in what they collect and how they do it. I'm merely making the point that so far the revelations have been about metadata.

I also believe that metadata collection could be abused, too. It's not some magic talisman that makes it all OK.

Insaniteus:I hate how all of these "revelations" just keep telling us stuff that we've known about for 10 freaking years.

It's just an attempt to pin this whole process on Obama, despite him actually getting the court and Congressional approval for every search (Which W refused to do). There are seriously people right now that are furious and horrified that Obama is spying on Americans through the courts, who didn't give one rat's half-eaten ass about Bush doing all of that and more illegally and without the slightest shred of oversight.

I have a theory that nothing pisses off a Republican more than when Obama adopts a Republican policy (This, Health care mandate, Amnesty, TSA, Drone strikes, closed-door meetings, etc).

...honestly, what the hell kind of idiotic, short-sighted, conformist thinking is this? I don't give a shiat if you don't value privacy, that's fine. But in a free society the decision to have or forgo individual privacy is left to the individual, not the state. This sorry state is not what the Fourth Amendment envisaged, and empowering the agents of the status quo with such enormous power to abuse us by allowing this sorry state to become the order of the day will virtually guarantee that the next Martin Luther King never arises in our culture.

Insaniteus:I hate how all of these "revelations" just keep telling us stuff that we've known about for 10 freaking years.

It's just an attempt to pin this whole process on Obama, despite him actually getting the court and Congressional approval for every search (Which W refused to do). There are seriously people right now that are furious and horrified that Obama is spying on Americans through the courts, who didn't give one rat's half-eaten ass about Bush doing all of that and more illegally and without the slightest shred of oversight.

I have a theory that nothing pisses off a Republican more than when Obama adopts a Republican policy (This, Health care mandate, Amnesty, TSA, Drone strikes, closed-door meetings, etc).

But all of those things were awesome and necessary up until 2008, when Bush won the war on terrorism by lame ducking tarp, dropping the mic and leaving stage.

Lexx:Isn't this just confirming what we long, long figured was the reality of the world, but never had to consciously confirm & acknowledge?

To be honest, I'm less concerned about how the government uses my personal data in this day & age (admittedly, the communist witch-hunts of Joe McCarthy's era were bad) and much, much more concerned about my personal data being freely available to the corporate sector & my fellow man.

We at GEICO have noticed your drive to work is much further than what you claimed on your policy. Also you speed through construction zones. We will be raising your premium.

Americans are a bunch of farking goldfish. Does nobody remember the AT&T/NSA partnership exposed in 2006? And the lawsuit was just dismissed two years ago thanks to that retroactive immunity grant congress passed in 2011. It's not like that deal was ancient history or hadn't been in the news recently.

I worked on IT projects with the Feds for years, and it was always understood that my email etc. was open to scrutiny, so I got used to it, and acquired 'good habits.' But now, I'm suspicious of the "chip" that was implanted in the pound puppy I adopted, last Summer. Hmmm....

...honestly, what the hell kind of idiotic, short-sighted, conformist thinking is this? I don't give a shiat if you don't value privacy, that's fine. But in a free society the decision to have or forgo individual privacy is left to the individual, not the state. This sorry state is not what the Fourth Amendment envisaged, and empowering the agents of the status quo with such enormous power to abuse us by allowing this sorry state to become the order of the day will virtually guarantee that the next Martin Luther King never arises in our culture.

The Supreme Court settled issues as to whether an individual has 4th amendment rights over information given to or recorded by a third party. They do not. This has been settled for a half century.

Your bank records are not yours - they are the bank's. You have no 4th amendment 'right to privacy' claim over the bank's property.

Same for Google. And Verizon.

If you make a call or send an email on someone else's service, the business records of that service is not yours and you have no 4th amendment right over it.

If you don't want other people looking at your stuff - DON'T GIVE IT TO OTHER PEOPLE.

I get the Internet make that hard or impossible - I'm sorry. But the 4th and 5th amendment doesn't and hasn't covered that ever.